Thanks for the compliment on asking me but the thread host (arbitrageur) is da man to ask!

What I can tell you is that the multi-verse is theoretical in nature and some think it cannot even be tested. The general idea is Gödel's
incompleteness theorem: a - if a system is definable and consistent it cannot be complete; b - if there is a consistency it cannot be proven from
within. (that is the general idea). So by being "within" the system you cannot be outside and defining it completely, hence the idea of multi-verse
starts off hitting a bump. Then there are several versions, and a couple classifications after the Gödel-esque hurdle!

I agree, from within you see nothing of the
nature of the whole. The bigger space is outside
the universe but we can only guess at it's nature.
Since the big bang did not occur as a singularity,
it is safe to assume there is much more than just
our Universe. But, on the microscopic scale, it
is not possible to get smaller and exceed
Einsteins' limit, say 10-45m.

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Could you please shed light on the Universe - multiverse,
supra-universe(s)? Can it be god is just playing natures'
games? Can it be true that when you comprehend the
universe in the vastness and minuteness with it's
magnificent massive size and curious atomic worlds?

I'm still waiting for the rest of the sentence that begins "Can it be true that when you
comprehend the universe...". Seems like a unfinished sentence.

Other universes may or may not exist. So-called "dark flow" has been alleged to be possible evidence of such but this has been disputed. The bottom
line for me is that while they may exist, if there is no way to observe them or provide evidence they exist, then it's a case of "Newtons Flaming
Laser Sword", which says something to the effect that if the question can't be answered with an experiment or observation it's not worth debating.

Person A can talk about multiverses and Person B can say they don't exist, and if there's no evidence to affirm or contradict either claim then they
can argue about it forever and we'll never know which one is correct.

Thanks for the compliment on asking me but the thread host (arbitrageur) is da man to ask!

Actually the format of the forum is to
just post the question and anybody who knows physics can answer it. Eros, dragonridr, mbkennel, bedlam and others know physics and have all made good
contributions here answering questions, and besides I don't have all the answers so it doesn't need to be addressed to me. In this case my answer is
similar to yours, to say there isn't really an answer, at least not yet.

Maybe some day someone will prove their "dark flow" claims more convincingly, or some other avenue of evidence could be discovered, and then we might
have something to talk about which doesn't fail the "Newtons Flaming Laser Sword" test.

Since the big bang did not occur as a singularity,
it is safe to assume there is much more than just
our Universe.

I don't need to make any assumptions about what's outside our universe. For me it's enough to know that our universe is larger
than the observable universe so we will never see directly outside it. It's possible that some "dark flow" claims could eventually be substantiated
but so far they haven't been as far as I know.

But, on the microscopic scale, it is not possible to get smaller and exceed Einsteins' limit, say 10-45m.

I think you mean Planck scale,
and no we can't observe that, and we really can't observe anything anywhere near that scale which is about 1.6 x 10^-35m for the Planck length, so I
don't know where you got your 10-45m number from. If Einstein said something about 10-45m, I'm not aware of it.

Thank you all for your thoughtful response. The Plank length is right,
the diameter of the smallest observable object. With the
uncertainty principle saying that we cannot see an electron and
at the same time measure it's velocity, even at the relatively
large atomic scale (10E-10m or 100 pm for a Helium atom)
the physics are a bit undetermined.
The Plank length sized black holes may have been part of the
conglomeration at the big bang that caused this universe.
The partial sentence wasn't finished due to the excessive
spirituality in the ending.

why don't someone explains why two like charges repel an opposite charges attract ?
why nobody explain what a charge is instead of only describing what it does ?

What do YOU think it is?

Like OP says "..lets hear it".

What do we know about charge except for obvious ability to repel and attract? Why similar certain particle characteristics repel and an opposite
attract? How do we define a difference between the two beyond and besides giving then names?

De Broglie standing wave concept I think eventually is appreciated. I agree with BASSPLRYR to great extend about this.

I will try to further elaborate my current understanding.
The 'charge' seems to be an ability of a certain looped standing wave to harmonize or not to harmonize with another wave on contact. Say in a very
simplified example we define harmonics as even and odd. Even harmonics (frequency) rejected occupied ups and downs, odd assimilated to accommodate new
balance state.

At this time De Broglie is the only hope)) If standing wave can loop on itself there has to be some sort of disturbance source (like a poll in a river
stream) that can cause any wave to catch its tail forming beautiful oscillating islands of energy.
Those polls in a river stream can be imagined as a grid of strings with curves vary to cause energy flux to swirl around in permanent 'charge' mode.
Spin is not involved in this case. We talk about disharmonies that attract to fill (add) and harmonies that cannot occupie same spots (rejected).

Line formula is y=mx+b
You can see where I used excel to calculate the slope m and the y-intercept b.
Then I populated the X axis in one number increments, just type in a second number click and drag and it auto-populates.
Put the line formula in the y-field, click and drag that and it auto-populates the y numbers.
Click add graph and it graphs those numbers. This is what you get but I'm still not sure what you're trying to accomplish so I don't know if its what
you're looking for.

Of course you can flip the sequence upside-down in Excel like you did but the graph will look the same either way.

This display might be be compressed so I'm not sure how legible this will be, but I think you can download it and display it full size after you
download it, then you can read the numbers, or choose "view image" then click to zoom in to full size display, which will then be legible.

That is exactly perfect.

Thank you so very much!

Any chance you could share this Excel sheet with me if you still have it saved?

I haven't used Google Spreadsheet in years and I seem to be a bit rusty with it.

originally posted by: greenreflections
I will try to further elaborate my current understanding.
The 'charge' seems to be an ability of a certain looped standing wave to harmonize or not to harmonize with another wave on contact.

How can
this hypothesis be tested? For example, all waves have wavelengths, right? So what is the wavelength of this standing wave and how would you measure
it?

At this time De Broglie is the only hope)) If standing wave can loop on itself

The DeBroglie wavelength of an electron and a proton
traveling at the same speed are very different yet they have the same charge. And if they aren't moving the De Broglie wavelength is what? And what
has happened to the charge? As with many of your posts it's hard to figure out what you're talking about and what relationship it has to what we
already know about physics.

a reply to: Steffer
I uploaded it to a file sharing host, and then tried to test the download, and it attempted to install malware on my computer so that's bad enough but
I certainly don't want that to happen to you, so instead I just went to the formulas tab and toggled "show formulas" which is all you really need to
duplicate it there.

I only entered four formulas, I'll point out where so you can do the same.
A1 isn't an Excel formula, it's just text to show the function. The Excel formulas for that are in B10-B103
A4-B5 are just the four numbers you gave me for X and Y.
A6: Calculates difference between starting and ending X values
B6: You can just drag A6 to B6 and it will copy the formula to do the same for Y.
B8: Slope formula, rise over run
C5: formula for b in the line equation y=mx+b
B10: This is Excel working formula for the text formula in A1, y=mx+b

All the other cells B11 and higher were automatically populated by dragging cell b10 down.

If you need the graph choose X-Y (scatter plot), which in this case isn't very scattered, because we calculated values to be linear. Then you have to
specify a field for the graph heading (I used A7), and the fields for the X and Y values, which should be obvious, A10-A103 and B10-B103.

Those should work in Excel and the free "Calc" app from openoffice.org. I can't say if they will work in the Google spreadsheet app as I haven't tried
that.

How can this hypothesis be tested? For example, all waves have wavelengths, right? So what is the wavelength of this standing wave and how would you
measure it?

You are asking me? I don't know.
Has to be the way where similar harmonics being rejected (deflected with preserved momentum, effect similar to two magnets repel) and 'off the beat'
harmonics when compared are added (attracted) to restore neutral charge value. By 'restore' I mean nuclei simply borrows necessary 'negative' from the
environment when needs to adjust new positive core value, for example.
Of course, this would imply that 'positive' is being an 'anomaly' among 'negative' loose energy. Just for fun, one of logical notions in this line of
thinking would suggest number of 'strings' is reduced as only 'positive' (counter negative loop) and not both are needed.

I have a question about Quartz and EM Conductivity. I haven't found much info on the web (probably asking the wrong search questions)

But what are the EM conductive qualities of quartz in general. Interested in it's optical conduction abilities. Can it super conduct at any
frequency ranges. Not conductive at all at various ranges etc....

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I have a question about Quartz and EM Conductivity. I haven't found much info on the web (probably asking the wrong search questions)

But what are the EM conductive qualities of quartz in general. Interested in it's optical conduction abilities. Can it super conduct at any
frequency ranges. Not conductive at all at various ranges etc....

Any help.

Quartz is a damn fine insulator. It's pretty transparent across a wide range of optical frequencies as well.

"Quantised Inertia" seems to be gaining a bit of momentum (geddit) in the NASA EM drive thread so I get the sea wall analogy but never having heard
of Unruh or Rindler before- I am struggling to see where the energy differential is coming from (Dirac's sea??)

Seems like you answered your own question. After reading about Unruh and Rindler, then re-reading the shielding article (took my time, as in, all
day), the Dirac Sea is exactly what they are talking about and where that difference is coming from.

The idea is as you are moving away from some wave coming towards you there is a point where the wave coming at you will never catch you (it does not
speed up since it vibrates at one frequency). But in front of you the same radiation wave can be treated the same as inertia--all at the quantum level
of course. The Unruh radiation is coming from al directions but the thought experiment is dealing with the ones on the same plane. I think the
shielding using metamaterials would encase the particle in question.

And you know the saying, "As above, so below"? I wonder if the "As below, so above" works because maybe that is what gravity is, the macro
manifestation of quantum-level Unruh radiation! So if you can shield for one... just a thought.

Did you google "Dirac sea"? Here is the second result: Antimatter
Drives which if I am reading the URL right comes from a posting from Univ. AK, Fairbanks!

That posting is mind blowing! Not because it is some sci-fi, "I wish I could do this" but because it is do-able!

My question for anybody out there: Does CERN create and magnetically trap anitparticles/antimatter?

And you know the saying, "As above, so below"? I wonder if the "As below, so above" works because maybe that is what gravity is, the macro
manifestation of quantum-level Unruh radiation! So if you can shield for one... just a thought.

Very confusing. People must completely abandon GR to think of inertia as some kind of receding energy wave effect.
And if you shield from inertia, just like you hope, that would mean you shield moving body from potential energy? Moving body until it meets
resistance (stopped by encountering an obstacle on its cruise course) has potential energy stored for that 'unmoving' body when collide and has
potential energy to do 'work', transform its potential energy into kinetic which is assumed by 'unmoving' body. And how one tell which one is moving?
Meaning all celestial bodies have inertia and potential energy which can be passed as a token to the next 'affected by collision' body.

And we talk 'body'. Why 'wave' is being treated as having inertia? What's up with that?

Yeah...so far I've been inspired to do a google tour de force on Metamaterials, Dirac, Rindler, Unruh, Mach, Woodward Effect, Quantised Inertia and
I'm currently musing over the mind boggling implications of photons having inertial mass that can be modified within a medium:

The thought I had is that GR is NOT completely corret. It is more like what Mach was saying. And not the Hippy-ish "all is connected" spiritual way
but actual particles enteracting w/each other way. And if the metamaterial can be tuned to block one type of radiation then why not block it all at
the macro since that is where, what we call gravity, resides. And that is just a thought.

Light exists, right? And it has a quantized nature, right? To say photons don't exist is to say that light doesn't exhibit quantized behavior, and
such a claim disagrees with experiment, and when a claim disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

Yes, light exist, and not, it's not quantized, that's what you don't get !
EM is continues and not in chunks !

EM emitter emit EM radiation in bits and this is what you "read" at all the fancy detectors you've build and than you call it a quanta.
Quanta is description of state and not a description for being.
you simply don't understand cause and effect, you are mistaken effects for cause

you can call those EM "chunks" a photon or whatever, it does not exist the same way piece or quiet does not exist.
also right or wrong do not exist, but I think understanding it is to much for you

those are just words describing a perception or sensation but it is not a physical real thing !
I'm sorry for you, you missing this point...

...you didn't know the difference...

does it make you feel better ? when I come down to your level and use therms you believe in ?
I needed to point out for you one of two, which btw I know none of both exist, to make it clear for you.
and you try to gain it to your advantage ?

..since now you at least admit they aren't the same

NO, I don't admit anything!
As I said, you believe those photons and virtual photons exist, I know they don't.
I was just separating those two therms so you understand what I'm talking about

We know more now than we knew 50 years ago, and then we know more than 50 years before that,

really ??
how is the progress from not knowing how it really works 10.000 years ago, to not knowing how it works 50 years ago, to not knowing how it works
today, in any manner to be seen as positive ??
You kidding, right ?

OK, I will give you a chance to prove those photons are real...
please collect... 5 photons should be enough as a proof... and send them per UPS to me, would you ?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.